[b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses LXX

Philip phil-eng at ighmail.com
Sat Sep 27 20:54:34 EDT 2003


Hmmm...

1. What do the DSS, Psalm 8:6[5] say?

2. I am assuming that the MT Vorlage (Parent text)is simply the unpointed
MT.
   Is this a fair assumption?

3. How close can we get to the LXX Vorlage?

Greetings,

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Peter Kirk
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:37 PM
To: CS Bartholomew
Cc: hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] elohim versus aggelous, Psalm 8:6[5] MT verses
LXX


On 27/09/2003 12:52, CS Bartholomew wrote:

>Just fixed a minor typo in the first line, I should read It.
>
>On 9/27/03 11:03 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Read any book on textual criticism. The change from )LHYM to ML)KYM (or
>>vice versa) requires one addition (or deletion), one transposition and
>>one improbable change of a letter all within one word. Such things just
>>don't happen.
>>
>>
>
>This is a classic straw man argument. It assumes a particular text critical
>scenario that I never suggested nor was it even in the perimeter of my
>thinking. You are assuming that the variant is a transmission error not an
>intentional change. Based on the theological significance of the variant I
>would be looking for an intentional change not a scribal error.
>
>
Thanks for the clarification. I must say a five times repeated
deliberate theological change is less improbable than a five times
repeated triple corruption of the same word in otherwise well
transmitted passages. But does that mean it is probable? Do we have any
evidence that these kinds of theological changes were ever made in the
LXX Vorlage, or maybe in the more LXX text type Hebrew texts among the
DSS? If so, you may be on to something. If not, what we are arguing over
is empty speculation as we have no way of knowing whether these changes
were made before, during or after translation into Greek. (Yes, after is
a real possibility in this case - the change could have been made by the
author of Hebrews and the LXX text conformed to Hebrews - or is there
DSS etc evidence against this one?) And so it is a waste of time to
speculate about the exact form of the LXX Vorlage.

>Who are you arguing with Peter? Not me. ...
>
I was defending poor Philip, a comparative newcomer to this list, from
your over the top "It isn't valid" attack on his perfectly good, though
not totally spelled out, argument.

>... I never suggested anything like this
>took place. There are a score of other text critical scenarios which you
are
>just ignoring. According to Hatch/Redpath aggelos in the LXX renders 15 or
>more different hebrew lexemes.
>
>
Thanks for this. Are any of those other lexemes more probable as
accidental corruptions of ):ELOHIYM?

>
>
>greetings,
>Clay Bartholomew
>
>
>


--
Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list